Anyway, no. Sorry. "Intolerance against the intolerant is just intolerance" isn't a silliness I can support. Otherwise, I'd have to give honest and open empathy to White Supremacists. Or else on what grounds could I criticize them?

It's all our duty to oppose bigotry, even if the bigots try to tell us that opposing them is also bigotry.

I agree with unequivocally opposing bigotry and I am not shy in that regard. Trump not only represents bigotry but actively encourages it. I suppose it is too much to expect principled political aspirants for high office in the digital age but that some actually revel in their excesses beggars belief. Trump and Clinton are the evil of two lessers

Donald Trump is signaling that he wants to appoint his campaign finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, according to a person close to the campaign.

Trump's preference for the Goldman Sachs alumnus is the latest evidence that the GOP presidential nominee would be inclined to hire officials with experience in the business world should he win next week's election, despite the anti-establishment tone that has dominated the campaign.

If you want to know why people disagree with you, stop hearing what you want to hear and start hearing what they are actually saying.

cesarvargas365Trump supporters are treating me like I'm a human being and Hillary's are being massively racist, ageist, classist, passive aggressive and all around revolting. What the hell is going on. I thought you guys were the liberal ones. Not adding up. Not computing. Hillary bros. Hillary bros. What the hell is wrong with you all?

whitereshiramThat awkward moment when you realize the Republicans have been on your side the entire time...

the_blckflgI've made the same experience. It's absolutely crazy how so called liberal minded people attack others for speaking their mind, or even just questioning. Courageous of you, be proud.

shoconteIt's not even about "liberals" and "republicans" anymore. It's a corrupt, political elite that's become complacent with their position versus the actual American people. Of course 'the people' are going to treat you like 'a person'. Not sure why you're surprised when the establishment just treats you like a "voter demographic".

jasonhartwellMaybe Trump supporters aren't the racists you thought they were. I certainly am not. Good luck with the vitriol and hate you are sure to receive from the "tolerant" ones. You're always welcome on the conservative side. ;-)

nexusalexisWe Trump supporters are tired of division and want unity in our country. We see Clinton, we see her corruption and are afraid 4 years of her will divide us like never before. Good to see you're receiving some love from us! We want everyone to feel like they have a place at our side!

nexusalexis@shoconte Exactly, I'm not even a Republican. I'm just tired of the establishment causing division and creating double standards.

omg.mika.wtfI used to think liberals cared about me because they claim to care about women and minorities. Turns out they only care if you are a unit of vote for them. If you don't vote for them, they turn on you. They pelt you with eggs. They call you Uncle Tom. They say you're "fucked in the head", as revealed in the O'Keefe video. They call you deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, irredeemable. Unamerican. They fucking disown you like last week's garbage. I'm sorry you're going through the ringer right now, but most people don't believe it until they've gone through it themselves. It's happened to me too. Stay strong, stand tall.

when_you_were_mineTrump Train welcomes EVERYONE who shares our values, no matter what they look like, who they love, etc. You'll find that seriously 99% of us feel this way, you guys in the media just focused on the 1%.

People are not supporting Trump because Trump. They are supporting Trump as a reaction to being hated. Look at these comments by followers of Cesar Vargas. How is the left losing these people? Doesn't this worry you?

@Magoo. I'm not saying to be tolerant of intolerance. I'm saying to be tolerant of Trump supporters. If you find individual ones that are racist, sexist, bigot, then call them out and show them where they're wrong. But the attitude from most around here is all Trump supporters are like that, and my argument is it's that attitude that creates Trump supporters in the first place.

Yes, some Trump supporters are low information voters. But not all, or necessarily even most.

Yes, some Trump supporters are prejudiced against Muslims. But not all, or necessarily even most.

Yes, some Trump supporters are racist against Hispanics. But not all, or necessarily even most.

And when you argue with that, you put a completely unnecessary wall between the left and those people who are not those things but for whatever other legitimate reason might still prefer Trump, if only because he's competing with someone who is a borderline war criminal.

Anyway, if this thread is so upsetting I won't object if it's closed. God forbid someone on Babble tries to argue that we treat each other better.

@Magoo. I'm not saying to be tolerant of intolerance. I'm saying to be tolerant of Trump supporters. If you find individual ones that are racist, sexist, bigot, then call them out and show them where they're wrong. But the attitude from most around here is all Trump supporters are like that, and my argument is it's that attitude that creates Trump supporters in the first place.

@Magoo. I'm not saying to be tolerant of intolerance. I'm saying to be tolerant of Trump supporters. If you find individual ones that are racist, sexist, bigot, then call them out and show them where they're wrong. But the attitude from most around here is all Trump supporters are like that, and my argument is it's that attitude that creates Trump supporters in the first place.

God forbid someone on Babble tries to argue that we treat each other better.

But you're only arguing that we all should treat Trump supporters better.

Do you have any thoughts on how they might treat everyone else better?

How about if they lay off all the nonsense about the bought-and-paid-for "Liberal media"?

What if they called Clinton "Clinton", or "Hillary" instead of "Shillary" or "Shrillary" or "Killary"?

What if they left her spouse out of it? Or stopped insinuating that she has Ebola.

If they were do do ANY of these, I'd feel much warmer and more empathetic toward them than I do. But they're not "poor wee victims" of anything, so it's really unclear why our new detente has to begin with US opening OUR minds and laying down OUR guns.

What do you feel that Trump supporters should do? I'm asking for concrete things.

I do not believe that most of the people who are thinking about voting for Mr. Trump are racist or sexist.

Quote:

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders

Some are, but I think most are people who are hurting, they’re worried about their kids, they’re working longer hours for lower wages.

That's a very nice thing for Sanders to say, particularly considering how most Trump supporters would be describing him now, had he won the nomination.

I wonder, though, what's the supposed connection between "hurting" and "worrying about their kids" and needing to expel Muslims, and build a huge wall to keep those criminal Mexicans out ("... and Mexico will pay for it!").

IMHO, it's as facile as saying that "most white supremacists just want a better world for their children". Seriously. Which voting bloc doesn't care about their children?

I do not believe that most of the people who are thinking about voting for Mr. Trump are racist or sexist.

Quote:

Bernie Sanders ‏@BernieSanders

Some are, but I think most are people who are hurting, they’re worried about their kids, they’re working longer hours for lower wages.

That's a very nice thing for Sanders to say, particularly considering how most Trump supporters would be describing him now, had he won the nomination.

That is absolutely not true. Sanders consistently outpolled Clinton against Republican opponents, even when it was clear that Clinton would still go on to win the Primary. A great deal of Sander's support base comes from Republicans. I documented that upthread. If Sanders were the nominee, his lead against Trump would be so great that we wouldn't be entertaining the idea of the Republicans prevailing.

The fact of the matter is that people do not like Hillary Clinton, and the more they get to know her, the less they like her. So put up a professional, career politician against an opponent who presents himself in an anit-establishment light, in a country where people are sick and tired of the establishment, and which candidate do you think people are going to support? Voting for Trump is the only way to stop Clinton. If someone who wasn't as disliked as Clinton was the nominee, for one you remove the impetus to vote against Clinton, and the intensity level drops right there. Put Trump against a candidate who has actually fought against the establishment his whole life (say someone like, Bernie Sanders) and it's much easier to show Trump for the charlatan and the phony that he is.

God forbid someone on Babble tries to argue that we treat each other better.

But you're only arguing that we all should treat Trump supporters better.

Do you have any thoughts on how they might treat everyone else better?

How about if they lay off all the nonsense about the bought-and-paid-for "Liberal media"?

What if they called Clinton "Clinton", or "Hillary" instead of "Shillary" or "Shrillary" or "Killary"?

What if they left her spouse out of it? Or stopped insinuating that she has Ebola.

If they were do do ANY of these, I'd feel much warmer and more empathetic toward them than I do. But they're not "poor wee victims" of anything, so it's really unclear why our new detente has to begin with US opening OUR minds and laying down OUR guns.

What do you feel that Trump supporters should do? I'm asking for concrete things.

It's a cliche, but you can "love the sinner, not the sin" here. You want an effective way to counter the BS that Trump espouses? Check the video I linked to upthread.

If Sanders were the nominee, his lead against Trump would be so great that we wouldn't be entertaining the idea of the Republicans prevailing.

Inferring that from one poll that happened months ago is a complete fiction, though I know some Bernie supporters have been banging on it since then, and will go into overdrive on it if Trump wins.

Had he won the nomination there would have been the same degree of slurs and smears and scaremongering, probably with even more ferocity because he represents a greater threat. If there was any doubt of that it should be gone after what the FBI did this week. It doesn't take much to swift boat and have everyone believe the lies.

When Clinton had her pneumonia scare in September replacements were polled and still Sanders polled better than Clinton against Trump.

I don't disagree that people who would have supported Trump against Sanders would have tried to smear Sanders. That's politics. Smearing the candidates is to be expected. The whole point I've been trying to make is there is a difference between smearing candidates (which may or may not be valid, but if nothing else is expected by the candidates when they run) and smearing a candidate's supporters, which is just wrong.

God forbid someone on Babble tries to argue that we treat each other better.

But you're only arguing that we all should treat Trump supporters better.

Never once have I've seen a Trump supporter suggest all Clinton supporters should be killed or mistreated in any way, but I've seen the reverse here on Rabble.

Quote:

Do you have any thoughts on how they might treat everyone else better?

No. They treat people pretty well unless their last name is Clinton or they have personally betrayed Trump (Bush, Kasich, Cruz, etc). See Cesar Vargas thread above.

Quote:

How about if they lay off all the nonsense about the bought-and-paid-for "Liberal media"?

"Corporate" "establishment" "mainstream" or rarely "state" media is what they call it. They understand that if Jeb Bush was running against Sanders the corporate media would be shilling for Bush. And it's confirmed by Wikileaks so I'm not sure why you call it nonsense.

Quote:

What if they called Clinton "Clinton", or "Hillary" instead of "Shillary" or "Shrillary" or "Killary"?

What if they called Trump "Trump" or "Donald" instead of "Hitler" or "Drumpf" or "the Chump"?

Also, nobody calls her Shrillary. Although you missed Illary. Regardless, there is a difference between attacking a specific candidate (however valid or not) and attacking a candidate's supporters when those supporters make up nearly half the population.

Quote:

What if they left her spouse out of it? Or stopped insinuating that she has Ebola.

yeah, why not leave the spouses out of it?

Quote:

If they were do do ANY of these, I'd feel much warmer and more empathetic toward them than I do. But they're not "poor wee victims" of anything, so it's really unclear why our new detente has to begin with US opening OUR minds and laying down OUR guns.

What do you feel that Trump supporters should do? I'm asking for concrete things.

All I'm saying is once you call someone a Nazi, there are two possibilities:

They actually are a Nazi (very unlikely) and you wouldn't have won them over whatever you do.

They aren't actually a Nazi but now they're going to dismiss everything you say because you just called them a Nazi.

When you smear half the population, you limit the amount of people who you can reach with your message.

I'm not saying be nice because they're victims. I'm saying be nice because it's the only way to persuade those who might think or believe a bit differently to your message.

Ari, there were Republicans supporting Bernie in the primaries to try to get rid of Clinton as a candidate. Bernie Sander's support base was inflated, and he did very well in all of the traditionally Republican states. That does not mean that Bernie stood a chance during the election in those Republican states where Republicans would have reverted back to the GOP right after the conventions.

Would anyone have foreseen what has been levelled at Clinton in the past week by rogues in the FBI? Would anyone have guessed, before it happened, the smear against John Kerry would have had the effect it did?

Sure Sanders has had to fight political campaigns in the past. The notion that anyone can know absolutely how he would have done in Clinton's place is complete nonsense.

But I am sure if this goes the wrong way people are going to be yelling it from the rooftops, just like some are yelling that the nomination was stolen from him. Some of what those people are doing is helping to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. And by that I don't mean valid criticism; I mean circulating some of the outright lies.

Not to make assumptions about you Aristotle, but there are some spinning that line who are completely disingenuous, IMO. If they are throwing their effort against Clinton, to turn around and complain that Sanders would have done better as the nominee is a completely tainted position.

Ari, there were Republicans supporting Bernie in the primaries to try to get rid of Clinton as a candidate. Bernie Sander's support base was inflated, and he did very well in all of the traditionally Republican states. That does not mean that Bernie stood a chance during the election in those Republican states where Republicans would have reverted back to the GOP right after the conventions.

Wrong Misfit. Do you know where in particular Sanders has the support of Republican voters? His own home state of Vermont, which elected a Republican Senator as recently as 2000. Polls in New Hampshire show the Republican incumbent has a good chance of retaining that seat. This is nonsense this idea that Republicans voted in some sort of planned scheme to take out Clinton for their own party's gain? Wouldn't their time have been much better spent choosing a nominee for their own party? What if they just liked Sanders even though he was running for the other party? You know who else came out for Sanders in droves? Independents, who make up a larger voting group than almost the Democrats and Republicans combined. Ann Coulter [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0BKkb2gtw8]begged Fox News to go easy on Clinton[/url] to help her out.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Would anyone have foreseen what has been levelled at Clinton in the past week by rogues in the FBI?

Yes, because she actually was investigated by the FBI. Just that fact is bad optics for a candidate, never mind what the FBI actually finds.

The fact is that Clinton is a bad candidate. Period. There is no honest or ethical defense that can be made of her as a candiate or her policy positions. That's why all she does is talk about Trump and how bad Trump is. Newsflash, we know that Trump is a reprehensible candidate, Trump himself doesn't deny that. What can you actually offer voters?

We get that you liked Bernie better. Frankly, so did I. I still fail to see how that's relevant at this late date.

Because Bernie's people accurately predicted that this would happen if Clinton won the nomination, and the Democrats ignored him. For that, the Democrats deserve to be obliterated on Tuesday, and Democrats of principle like Russ Feingold, Nina Turner, and Tulsi Gabbard should feel welcome to leave the party behind and join the people in challenging the corporate power structures.

I have no problem with that, but maybe you should stop pretending that this is about Sanders beating Trump, because he is not onside with you. Not on the attacking Hillary, and not on the imaginary write in campaigns.

I do have a problem with what you seem to be willing to risk for the sake of blind vengance, though.

And Comey's smear was without foundation, against the advice of justice authorities, and cooked up by Rudi Guiliani to benefit Donald Trump. And very probably against the law.

If you are complaining that Sanders would have done better, and you are actively spreading misleading information against Clinton, it is a tainted position because you are working to defeat her.

Misleading information about Clinton like what? That she blames all her scandals on "The Russians"? That she's been taking bribes for years? That she wants a no fly zone in Syria to help the rebels defeat Assad which everyone else including Obama, Bernie, and even Orange Hitler all agree is a dangerous idea that will probably lead to war with Syria and Russia? The fact that her "experience" is an unbroken string of hawkish blunders? Has she been involved in or supported one single military excercise that has gone well? Has she ever seen a military venture she hasn't liked?

If Sanders were the nominee, his lead against Trump would be so great that we wouldn't be entertaining the idea of the Republicans prevailing.

Inferring that from one poll that happened months ago is a complete fiction, though I know some Bernie supporters have been banging on it since then, and will go into overdrive on it if Trump wins.

Had he won the nomination there would have been the same degree of slurs and smears and scaremongering, probably with even more ferocity because he represents a greater threat. If there was any doubt of that it should be gone after what the FBI did this week. It doesn't take much to swift boat and have everyone believe the lies.

Do you not think Sanders was slurred and smeared when he first ran for elected office in Vermont? They called him all kinds of names and he still ended up going on to win. Really, what kind of smear can they throw at him? That he's a socialist? Not only does he have a way of explaining socialism to people in a way that makes socialism sound okay, but his young followers who backed him enthusiastically and told their friends to vote for Sanders are actually in favour of socialism. That he doesn't support the troops? Some of his biggest fans in Vermont are veterans. And let's remember that he was smeared and dismissed even before the contest began, and still won 45% of the vote in states where socialism is very popular, states like West Virginia. It's interesting that you would mention the FBI because there is no reason for the FBI to investigate Sanders. Additionally, Sanders has an advantage over all the other Democratic and Republican candidates vying for the nomination because he was the only candidate from that group that people actually like.

I really don't know what progressives and liberals in the US want any more. They certainly have shown themselves to be utterly lacking in principles, convictions, or courage and have behaved in a completely cowardly way. I remember how everyone said that Bush was the worst President ever, however Clinton has actually convinced liberals to support Bush's policies. People didn't like the wars Bush started? Clinton supported them and lobbied for her own intervention in Syria. Bush gutted civil liberties, Clinton voted for that. Bush opposed gay rights, so did Clinton until 2013 when the matter was largely settled. Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, but there are already parts of the border that are fenced off already. Trump will rip up the Paris climate agreement. Okay, that's bad, but Clinton supported fracking, takes money from fossil fuel lobbies, and refuses to take a position in favour of the DAPL protesters. Bush and Trump are racists who want to lock up more black people. Guess who else wants to lock up more black people? Prison lobbyists who donated to Clinton. Republicans using race baiting during a campaign? What about the fact that in 2008 Clinton tried to use racism against Obama to gain a benefit in that primary? Trump is sexist for the way he was caught on tape bragging about the way he treated women. Okay, that's bad, but was Bill Clinton's treatment of Monica Lewinsky any different or better? What about the claim that the FBI action against Clinton is a witchhunt? Gee, what do you think the Republicans said in the dying days of the Bush Administration in response to their dark deeds coming into the light?

Why is it that all of these things are bad when a Republican does them, but when a Democrat does them it is somehow acceptable? Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or does that all depend on whether or not the person doing them is on my team?

Never once have I've seen a Trump supporter suggest all Clinton supporters should be killed or mistreated in any way, but I've seen the reverse here on Rabble.

And what about the candidate herself? Didn't you hear the Trump supporters chanting "execute her!" just yesterday? Or how about the elected Republican officials who have called for her death? Or all those Trump supporters who call for taking up arms if things don't go their way?

I have no problem with that, but maybe you should stop pretending that this is about Sanders beating Trump, because he is not onside with you. Not on the attacking Hillary, and not on the imaginary write in campaigns.

I do have a problem with what you seem to be willing to risk for the sake of blind vengance, though.

I can't exactly vote in this election, but even if I could, what exactly am I "risking" for "blind vengance?" Clinton is wrong on essentially every issue of concern to me, and has been for a long time. Whatever happened to the idea of democracy being where you advocate for public policy that is important to you?

Then stop pretending that your motive is for the issues that Bernie Sanders proposed, and that this has anything to do with who allegedly stands a better chance against Donald Trump and realize that you are not on the same side of this as he is.

I also supported him, and I made my decision based on policy issues. The most important one for me is who I want filling those vacancies on the supreme court, but there are plenty of others that result in the same decision of Clinton being the best choice here.

I already told you what is lies in this. Much of what is being broadcast around the emails - that she destroyed them in violation of a supboena, that the FBI is starting a new investigation, that there is a pending indictment. To name only three.I could fill a pageif you wanted.

I also supported him, and I made my decision based on policy issues. The most important one for me is who I want filling those vacancies on the supreme court, but there are plenty of others that result in the same decision of Clinton being the best choice here.

Ari, I think we all like Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. I know that I do anyway. I do not agree with you that Bernie Sanders would have been able to defeat Trump. I hope he could and I wish that he could. A lot of people do not like Hillary because of the emails. I am not an expert on her email history, but I have witnessed enough to believe that the email scandal was grossly overblown, and that if Hillary were not an aspiring woman that the email controversy would have blown itself out years ago. I believe that there is a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in the United States because she is a woman, and they do not want a female president in power. Therefore, I cut Hillary some slack even though she is so right-wing and is closely tied to Wall Street. I cannot imagine how anyone would want the Republicans in power just to spite Hillary Clinton. You really lost me there. And for Trump, of all people, that is totally mind boggling indeed.

Then stop pretending that your motive is for the issues that Bernie Sanders proposed, and that this has anything to do with who allegedly stands a better chance against Donald Trump and realize that you are not on the same side of this as he is.

And people wonder why Clinton is losing popular support. With these implications that if you support someone other than Clinton there is something nefarious in your motives?

Sanders said upfront that he will support Clinton if she won the nomination. He has his own reasons for doing this, but even he acknowledged that he can't snap his fingers and his people go for Clinton. It's not even just about Clinton. Several candidates (Tim Canova and Alan Greyson came to mind) ran in primaries on policy platforms similar to what Bernie supported, and they lost to corporatist Democrats. Whether those campaigns were fair or not, the message is clear that the Democratic Party is no place to advance a progressive platform.

I also gave quite a laundry list of issues where Clinton has a proven track record that is just as bad as Bush's, and nobody has addressed that. I wonder why?

I'll vote how I want to vote. If that ends up with Trump winning, it's the Democrat's failure to speak to my concerns and issues, not my failure.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I also supported him, and I made my decision based on policy issues. The most important one for me is who I want filling those vacancies on the supreme court, but there are plenty of others that result in the same decision of Clinton being the best choice here.

Bullshit scare tactic is all that is. They said the same thing in 2004 with Bush. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now.

Misfit wrote:

Ari, I think we all like Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. I know that I do anyway. I do not agree with you that Bernie Sanders would have been able to defeat Trump.

Cody and I both posted reasons why we believe Sanders would have been able to beat Trump. What are your reasons for thinking otherwise?

Misfit wrote:

I believe that there is a lot of anti-Hillary sentiment in the United States because she is a woman, and they do not want a female president in power.

I agree that a great deal of criticism directed at Hillary is because she is a woman, however she is not above criticism. There are so many other women, like Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, or Jill Stein who have solid records of public service and are much better candidates.

Misfit wrote:

I cut Hillary some slack even though she is so right-wing and is closely tied to Wall Street.

How much slack should we cut Hillary and the Democrats? How bad does a Democratic candidate have to be before it is okay to stop supporting them? At least some Republicans who have ditched Trump for what an all-around reprehensible human being he is are sticking to some principles. Are there any principles for which Democratic voters are willing to stand to the point of abandoning a Democratic candidate who violates them?

Misfit wrote:

I cannot imagine how anyone would want the Republicans in power just to spite Hillary Clinton. You really lost me there. And for Trump, of all people, that is totally mind boggling indeed.

Where did I say anything about specifically wanting Trump in power? Do you honestly think that is true of anybody who posts on this forum? I've outlined why I think the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular are bad candidates, and why I do not think they deserve to win. Does that mean I necessarily want Trump to win? No. I think the fact that I started the "Jill Stein for President" thread implies that I want Jill Stein (someone who is not Donald Trump) to win.

But see this is the problem with voting lesser evil and not holding the Democrats to account for their misdeeds. Remember when we all hated Bush and how bad he was? Can you guess who Bush is supporting this time around? (I'll give a hint: it's not his own party's nominee.) So Clinton gets in, and we have to temper our critique of her policies lest we avoid allwoing the Republicans to win. Then, 12-16 years from now, there's going to be another Democrat running on Trump's current platform who we have to support because the Republicans are that much worse. When will that cycle ever end?

Here's something else to think about. Americans are very angry and frustrated with the political system and the situation they face themselves in. 4 of the last 5 federal elections have seen massive swings against the party currently in power, and it's already looking like the Senate is going to stay in Republican control regardless. Whoever is in power is very likely to be a one-term President, and that President will most likely see a huge swing against his or her party come the 2018 mid-term elections. People are going to continue to be frustrated as the political system continues to address their issues. You think the Republicans are bad now, imagine how bad they'll be in 2018 and 2020 riding the anger of the population and directing it at a Democratic president. Furthermore, the Republicans are going to try and impeach Hillary, and if they get enough numbers in 2018, they will not need a reason to do so. That doesn't even factor in the wild-card of a Senator from a third party actually voting with the Republicans on impeachment.

Aristotle, I don't care how you vote. I said already I have no problem with you voting for Jill Stein.

I am just saying that I don't put any stock in the claim from disgruntled Bernie supporters that "their" candidate would have done better. In the first place, you have no way of knowing that from a poll done before the nomination was even sealed. In the second place many of those in that disgruntled camp are doing their best to make sure Clinton does as poorly as possible. So it is a disingenuous position.

Sorry, but you if you think you are doing this for Bernie, you aren't. He made a pretty clear request at the convention, and many of them jumped on him for it. So them talking at this point about how he would have done better is kind of absurd .

Here is what Bernie is trying to do right now, and there is an opportunity for anyone who wants to help. He starts around the nine minute mark.

Sorry, but you if you think you are doing this for Bernie, you aren't. He made a pretty clear request at the convention, and many of them jumped on him for it. So them talking at this point about how he would have done better is kind of absurd .

It's not about Bernie the person. He's well-enough looked after that he doesn't need me doing anything for him. Bernie resonated because he spoke to the issues that people were thinking about. The one good thing that came out of his candidacy was that the left learned how to communicate with people. This is now going beyond Bernie and is manifesting itself in so many other ways, whether voting for Jill Stein, community organizing, or standing with the Sioux in the Dakotas. Bernie may have lit the flame, but the torch has been passed on.

Ari, there were Republicans supporting Bernie in the primaries to try to get rid of Clinton as a candidate. Bernie Sander's support base was inflated, and he did very well in all of the traditionally Republican states.

Are you referring to the traditionally Republican red states of New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Vermont and Rhode Island?

I came across this article today - I think it encapsulates both the idea that we do understand the core Trump supporter - white, male, working to middle class, middle-aged or older - but that we don't let that understanding halt the progress that's being made for women and minorities. It's time to change because the world already has.

For women, feminism is both remarkably successful and a work in progress: We are in the work force in record numbers, but rarely ascend to the highest ranks. Sexual violence is taken more seriously than ever, but women still experience it, usually from men they know, at astounding rates. Women are more visible in public life and create more of the media and art Americans consume, but we still make up just 19 percent of Congress and 33 percent of speaking roles in the 100 top-grossing films.

Still, young women are soaring, in large part because we are coming of age in a kind of feminist sweet spot: still exhibiting many traditional feminine behaviors — being polite, cultivating meaningful connections, listening and communicating effectively — and finding that those same qualities work to our benefit in the classroom and workplace, opening up more opportunities for us to excel. And while we do find ourselves walking the tightrope between being perceived as a nice bimbo or a competent bitch, there are more ways to be a woman than ever before. It’s no longer unusual to meet a female lawyer or engineer. No one bats an eye if we cut our hair short, wear pants, pay with a credit card in our own name, win on the soccer field, or buy our own home.

Men haven’t gained nearly as much flexibility. The world has changed around them, but many have stayed stuck in the past. While women have steadily made their way into traditionally male domains, men have not crossed the other way. Men do more at home than they used to, but women still do much more — on an average day, 67 percent of men do some housework compared with 85 percent of women. Male identity remains tied up in dominance and earning potential, and when those things flag, it seems men either give up or get angry.

This, perhaps more than anything else, explains the rise of Donald J. Trump: He promised struggling white men that they could have their identities back.

It's not that they aren't understood. It's that they're not being given in to.

And what did Sarandon do to warrant such attacks and vitriol directed at her? She supported someone other than Hillary Clinton.

But hey, when it's Hillary Clinton, any lie, smear, or personal attack is acceptable in her defense, even if directed at another woman. Any challenge to Hillary Clinton is a Republican smear job that should be dismissed out of hand. Is this what progressive politics has come down to?

And what did Sarandon do to warrant such attacks and vitriol directed at her? She supported someone other than Hillary Clinton.

But hey, when it's Hillary Clinton, any lie, smear, or personal attack is acceptable in her defense, even if directed at another woman. Any challenge to Hillary Clinton is a Republican smear job that should be dismissed out of hand. Is this what progressive politics has come down to?

You may not realize this, but two of the hot links you posted link to the same article. So one of those links is superfluous.

In the first article, the writer points out that a specific claim made by Sarandon was false. That is, Sarandon presented something as having been spoken by Barack Obama. According to the writer, it wasn't spoken by Barack Obama. Now, the things that Barack Obama says are recorded pretty carefully, even back when he supposedly said this. So it shouldn't be that hard to check whether in fact he said it or not. If in fact he didn't say it, then suggesting that Sarandon 'lied' is hardly a smear. In fact, if Obama didn't say it, it was Sarandon who was trying to smear Clinton.

In the second article linked to, the writer (same as first article), Sarandon is quoted as endorsing Trump, rather than Clinton. Again, it's either true or not true. In that Sarandon's statement was apparently made on national television, it should be pretty easy to check.

Now, assuming she did say it, it's not a problem for anyone to state they would rather vote for candidate A than candidate B. In this case, Sarandon appears to be a campaigner for Sanders. I don't think anyone has denied that. A reporter has a right to ask whether the Sanders campaign endorses the statements made by someone who has been a pubic voice for that campaign. In this story quoted, the writer did nothing more than quote a question and answer between Andrea Mitchell and a Clinton campaign spokesperson, thus

Quote:

Mitchell: She is talking about Hillary Clinton as the status quo.

Fallon: Look, I thought those comments were peculiar. I give the Sanders campaign the benefit of the doubt. Not every surrogate that goes out actually reflects the views of the candidate. I’ll give Senator Sanders the opportunity to address those comments that Susan Sarandon made last night.

Somehow that statement doesn't strike me as being particulary false or smear-like. In fact, given the nature and tone of much of the campaign mud-slinging, I would say it was downright polite.

You may be able to make a case for your contention that Clinton's opponents are being lied about and smeared, but not with those two articles.

You may be able to make a case for your contention that Clinton's opponents are being lied about and smeared, but not with those two articles.

The purpose was to show the specific headlines because headlines are what grab people's attention. Two different headlines can give 2 different impressions of the same article, and it was to show how the headlines were written in an inflammatory way.

You may be able to make a case for your contention that Clinton's opponents are being lied about and smeared, but not with those two articles.

The purpose was to show the specific headlines because headlines are what grab people's attention. Two different headlines can give 2 different impressions of the same article, and it was to show how the headlines were written in an inflammatory way.

Ah, well there you have it. As an inveterate reader I seldom even look at the headlines. Headlines are there to sell the article, but when someone posts an article, I just assume it is to allow other interested parties to read the article. The headline means nothing to me. Especially in these days of 'click-bait'.

Imagine yourself in front of a wall a hundred feet high, and three hundred feet long, filled with neon signs. How do you pick out the sign that interests you? I suggest those headline writers are trying to make their neon sign brighter than the next.

I'll also suggest that such headlines and articles don't do much to change anyone's mind. They are mostly to draw in people who are already in agreement, and turn them into advertisement fodder. Sad, but true.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the outcome of this presidential election was determined a year ago. I doubt that all the money spent, the advertising, the media frenzy, the disclosures, the secret this and that, the mud-slinging, etc., etc., etc., has changed very few minds. In the USA you're either a Democrat or a Republican. Nothing will change that. It's like the old days when your dad was a Chev guy or a Ford guy. You pick up your politics from your parents.

The only thing is, if the candidate for your party is a real stinker, you might stay home, withholding your vote, so to speak. On the other hand, if you candidate is an ultra stinker, you may vote for them simply because you think others will stay home.

What's funny is that the ferocity of the campaign increases in direct ratio to the similarity between the parties. On ninety-nine percent of issues you couldn't slide a cigarett paper between the Democrats and the Republicans, and that somehow infuriates the supporters, pushing them to ever higher levels of rage and vindictiveness.

Will the outcome of the electon really change anything in the USA? No, it won't. They are losing their manufacturing capability, slowly but surely, and along with it the middle class that is supported by those jobs. Nothing is going to change that. Perhaps that by itself causes much of the fury. The frustration of knowing that whatever you do, you're not going to change anything.

I don't think sexism is the sole issue at play in this election, even if it is an important one. (For the record, I admire Susan Sarandon a great deal, even if I think she's wrong on this issue.)

Here's another piece that puts paid to the notion that Trump supporters haven't been given enough attention or understanding:

Quote:

The 2016 Democratic Party is a coalition of non-college-educated, working-class people of color; middle-class people of all races and ethnic backgrounds; younger people; college-educated white people; and a large majority of women. The Republicans, on the other hand, are now the party of non-college-educated white people and a small sample of everyone else.

Yet for some reason the lesson of this election, at least among the pundit class, is not that we have this new diverse majority that coalesced behind the first African-American president and now behind the first woman to become the nominee of a major party. That’s an exciting story, representing a sea change in American culture and political life. Who are these people, and what is their common set of values? What makes a Latino mechanic in Tucson, Arizona, vote for the same person as the college-educated female small business owner in Vermont? Why are middle- and upper-class African-Americans still loyal to the Democratic Party? Why do so many more women vote Democratic? Almost nothing has been said about any of this throughout this endless election season.

Instead, media outlets are obsessed with the other group, the white non-college-educated minority, particularly the angry white men who followed Trump. There have been dozens of articles trying to figure out what makes them tick. Meanwhile, a large coalition of voters who want to take the high road in dealing with some of the thorniest problems that are vexing other nations (immigration, assimilation, pluralism and religious freedom) is of no interest. A majority of Americans is on the cusp of validating the idea that equality, opportunity, tolerance and inclusion are the values we endorse, and it might as well not be happening.

According to the mainstream media, the message from this election is that the Democrats have let down oppressed white men and they must work to get them back in the fold if they want to be seen as legitimate. For instance, here’s what Chris Matthews said on “Meet the Press,” talking about the lessons Democrats supposedly have to learn from this election:

[I]f this election goes as your polls [are] showing it going with Hillary winning, there’s still a huge minority of the country, almost 50-50 and probably more, that would’ve voted for Trump if it weren’t for Trump. His issues were powerful. He tapped into anger. It was trade. It was uncontrolled immigration, wars we probably shouldn’t have fought. . . . But the fact is the Democrats ought to recognize that they didn’t win the argument. They didn’t win the argument if they win the election. And they better be careful about that.

Actually, they did win the argument, if you understand that the Trump campaign ran on the premise that all our problems are caused by “the other” — meaning something other than white males. He told them the clock could be turned back to a time when it was acceptable for men to treat women like objects and for white people to act as if they owned the country and everyone else was just visiting.